A generic method of engagement to elicit regional coastal management options

Stakeholder engagement is important for successful management of natural resources, both to make effective decisions and to obtain support. However, in the context of coastal management, questions remain unanswered on how to effectively link decisions made at the catchment level with objectives for marine biodiversity and fisheries productivity. Moreover, there is much uncertainty on how to best elicit community input in a rigorous manner that supports management decisions. A decision support process is described that uses the adaptive management loop as its basis to elicit management objectives, priorities and management options using two case studies in the Great Barrier Reef, Australia. The approach described is then generalised for international interest. A hierarchical engagement model of local stakeholders, regional and senior managers is used. The result is a semi-quantitative generic elicitation framework that ultimately provides a prioritised list of management options in the context of clearly articulated management objectives that has widespread application for coastal communities worldwide. The case studies show that demand for local input and regional management is high, but local influences affect the relative success of both engagement processes and uptake by managers. Differences between case study outcomes highlight the importance of discussing objectives prior to suggesting management actions, and avoiding or minimising conflicts at the early stages of the process. Strong contributors to success are a) the provision of local information to the community group, and b) the early inclusion of senior managers and influencers in the group to ensure the intellectual and time investment is not compromised at the final stages of the process. The project has uncovered a conundrum in the significant gap between the way managers perceive their management actions and outcomes, and community's perception of the effectiveness (and wisdom) of these same management actions.

Climate Clever Beef: options to improve business performance and reduce greenhouse gas emissions in northern Australia

The Rangeland Journal – Climate Clever Beef special issue examines options for the beef industry in northern Australia to contribute to the reduction in global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and to engage in the carbon economy. Relative to its gross value (A$5 billion), the northern beef industry is responsible for a sizable proportion of national reportable GHG emissions (8–10%) through enteric methane, savanna burning, vegetation clearing and land degradation. The industry occupies large areas of land and has the potential to impact the carbon cycle by sequestering carbon or reducing carbon loss. Furthermore, much of the industry is currently not achieving its productivity potential, which suggests that there are opportunities to improve the emissions intensity of beef production. Improving the industry’s GHG emissions performance is important for its environmental reputation and may benefit individual businesses through improved production efficiency and revenue from the carbon economy. The Climate Clever Beef initiative collaborated with beef businesses in six regions across northern Australia to better understand the links between GHG emissions and carbon stocks, land condition, herd productivity and profitability. The current performance of businesses was measured and alternate management options were identified and evaluated. Opportunities to participate in the carbon economy through the Australian Government’s Emissions Reduction Fund (ERF) were also assessed. The initiative achieved significant producer engagement and collaboration resulting in practice change by 78 people from 35 businesses, managing more than 1 272 000 ha and 132 000 cattle. Carbon farming opportunities were identified that could improve both business performance and emissions intensity. However, these opportunities were not without significant risks, trade-offs and limitations particularly in relation to business scale, and uncertainty in carbon price and the response of soil and vegetation carbon sequestration to management. This paper discusses opportunities for reducing emissions, improving emission intensity and carbon sequestration, and outlines the approach taken to achieve beef business engagement and practice change. The paper concludes with some considerations for policy makers.

An evaluation of carbon offset supplementation options for beef production systems on coastal speargrass in central Queensland, Australia

In 2014, the Australian Government implemented the Emissions Reduction Fund to offer incentives for businesses to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by following approved methods. Beef cattle businesses in northern Australia can participate by applying the 'reducing GHG emissions by feeding nitrates to beef cattle' methodology and the 'beef cattle herd management' methods. The nitrate (NO3) method requires that each baseline area must demonstrate a history of urea use. Projects earn Australian carbon credit units (ACCU) for reducing enteric methane emissions by substituting NO3 for urea at the same amount of fed nitrogen. NO3 must be fed in the form of a lick block because most operations do not have labour or equipment to manage daily supplementation. NO3 concentrations, after a 2-week adaptation period, must not exceed 50 g NO3/adult animal equivalent per day or 7 g NO3/kg dry matter intake per day to reduce the risk of NO3 toxicity. There is also a 'beef cattle herd management' method, approved in 2015, that covers activities that improve the herd emission intensity (emissions per unit of product sold) through change in the diet or management. The present study was conducted to compare the required ACCU or supplement prices for a 2% return on capital when feeding a low or high supplement concentration to breeding stock of either (1) urea, (2) three different forms of NO3 or (3) cottonseed meal (CSM), at N concentrations equivalent to 25 or 50 g urea/animal equivalent, to fasten steer entry to a feedlot (backgrounding), in a typical breeder herd on the coastal speargrass land types in central Queensland. Monte Carlo simulations were run using the software @risk, with probability functions used for (1) urea, NO3 and CSM prices, (2) GHG mitigation, (3) livestock prices and (4) carbon price. Increasing the weight of steers at a set turnoff month by feeding CSM was found to be the most cost-effective option, with or without including the offset income. The required ACCU prices for a 2% return on capital were an order of magnitude higher than were indicative carbon prices in 2015 for the three forms of NO3. The likely costs of participating in ERF projects would reduce the return on capital for all mitigation options. © CSIRO 2016.

Bioeconomic modelling of woody regrowth carbon offset options in productive grazing systems

Agricultural land has been identified as a potential source of greenhouse gas emissions offsets through biosequestration in vegetation and soil. In the extensive grazing land of Australia, landholders may participate in the Australian Government’s Emissions Reduction Fund and create offsets by reducing woody vegetation clearing and allowing native woody plant regrowth to grow. This study used bioeconomic modelling to evaluate the trade-offs between an existing central Queensland grazing operation, which has been using repeated tree clearing to maintain pasture growth, and an alternative carbon and grazing enterprise in which tree clearing is reduced and the additional carbon sequestered in trees is sold. The results showed that ceasing clearing in favour of producing offsets produces a higher net present value over 20 years than the existing cattle enterprise at carbon prices, which are close to current (2015) market levels (~$13 t–1 CO2-e). However, by modifying key variables, relative profitability did change. Sensitivity analysis evaluated key variables, which determine the relative profitability of carbon and cattle. In order of importance these were: the carbon price, the gross margin of cattle production, the severity of the tree–grass relationship, the area of regrowth retained, the age of regrowth at the start of the project, and to a lesser extent the cost of carbon project administration, compliance and monitoring. Based on the analysis, retaining regrowth to generate carbon income may be worthwhile for cattle producers in Australia, but careful consideration needs to be given to the opportunity cost of reduced cattle income.